That variation on the old schoolyard taunt sums up one likely effect of the growing education gap between young men and women, say two American scholars who have studied the topic.

Andrew Hacker, whose book Mismatch: The Growing Gulf Between Women and Men was released last year, says the imbalance in male and female educational attainment is playing havoc with relationships between the genders. "Women are now choosier," says Mr. Hacker, who teaches political science at Queen's College in New York. "They have higher standards for their mates than they ever did in the past."

"It's really quite fascinating how brainy women in the past would settle for really quite dull guys," he says. "Now, they're not." As a result, predicts Mr. Hacker, more women either won't marry or will find their marriage unsatisfying and divorce.

Women now account for more than 57 per cent of all students in university undergraduate programs in Canada and the United States. Each year, about 30,000 more women than men earn bachelor degrees in Canada. In the U.S., the comparable figure is 200,000.

"That tells me that 200,000 women each year are not going to find equivalently educated men to marry," says Thomas Mortenson, a senior scholar at the Washington-based Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.

"It's the women on campus who are asking the question: Where are the boys?" says Mr. Mortenson. "In some cases they're transferring between institutions if the gender balance is too far out of whack.

"When the gender balance gets to some level, like 60-40, and a lot of girls aren't getting dates on Saturday night, they say, 'Well, I'd like to have a social life -- I'm going someplace else.'"

The problem is, says Mr. Mortenson, "there aren't very many places else to go. In the aggregate there are something like two million more girls in college (in the U.S.) than there are boys right now, and you can't go many places to find the boys."

It's becoming apparent to women that the gender imbalance on campus is going to spill over into the marriage market, he says. That's why women should be concerned about it. "You can't cruise along on your own success and leave everybody else behind and ultimately have the kind of life that you envisioned as a youngster."

Mr. Hacker cites the TV show Sex and the City as a cultural marker of the growing mismatch between men and women. "That wouldn't be such a popular program," he says, "if it didn't show these four women, none of whom can find a man worthy of them. And I see this with my students and elsewhere."

In an article last year in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Mr. Hacker noted that in 1970, 62 per cent of married American males with BAs had more education than their wives. "Today, the reverse in increasingly the case. According to the latest Census count, among married women ages 25 to 34 who have a bachelor's degree, 39 per cent have husbands who haven't gotten that far."

If things don't change, university-educated women will increasingly be unable to find men who share their interest in such things as classical music, live theatre, art exhibits and high-end TV like Masterpiece Theatre, says Mr. Hacker. Audience surveys show that many women attend such events alone or with female friends, he writes. "Perhaps that was ever so. But are college women increasingly going to have to settle for less in their relationships?"

A corollary effect is that men who lack higher education may increasingly have trouble finding a compatible woman, says Mr. Hacker. "I think that a lot of men are discovering -- and this is in all classes, including the blue-collar class -- that women are not as submissive and subordinate as these guys have been led to expect."

The growing gender incompatibility may lead men to look elsewhere for their intimate relationships. "More men are declaring themselves gay than ever in the past," says Mr. Hacker. The situation is likely to get worse for men, he says. "If you ask what's the future going to be like, say 15 years from now, I think we're going to have more demoralized men.

"Just look at the number of men who didn't get a promotion, but a woman did. In the past, men were passed by other men, but never by women."

Men need to adjust to this societal change, he said. "And I'm not sure how well the adjustment's being made."

TUESDAY, April 20 (HealthDayNews) -- When young women look for long-term mates, they really do prefer Ray Romano-types over the Brad Pitts and Arnold Schwarzeneggers of the world.

While they're attracted to muscular men for quick flings, female college students surveyed at two campuses said they'd choose scrawnier guys as spouses, according to new research.

While the women surveyed tend to think of muscular men as more attractive and better in bed, they also think of them as "less faithful, less likely to treat them well and be less emotionally sensitive," said study co-author David Frederick, a psychology graduate student at the University of California, Los Angeles.

"When women are choosing mates -- except for very attractive women -- they're facing a tradeoff of choosing a guy who's very sexy or one who will stick around and treat them well," he added.

Frederick and a colleague surveyed 325 college-age women about their preferred male physiques, and measured their reactions after they looked at pictures of real and computer-generated men. The men were of various levels of muscular fitness.

Frederick reported the results April 17 at a meeting of the western region of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality in San Diego.

On a scale of 1 to 5, the women rated the average male at just below 3. The average rating for their ideal "short-term" partner was about 4.5; it was 4 for "long-term" partners. The women rated muscular men as nearly twice as sexy -- and twice as intimidating and dominant -- as non-muscular men.

"Based on the theory we're working under, most women wouldn't choose to marry Brad Pitt because he has so many short-term dating opportunities," Frederick said.

Most women wouldn't be confident that such a hunk would stay faithful. "The average woman would probably go for the Ray Romano guy as the long-term marriage partner," Frederick said.

And what of the most spectacularly built men, those who remind people of the new governor of California? Judging by the study results, they may be out of luck. Women reported an "ickiness factor" when they looked at the most muscular men, Frederick said.

"Women really associated the extreme levels of muscularity with high levels of narcissism and self involvement," he said.

The exceptions to the rules are extremely attractive women who tend to be willing to take the risk of marrying well-built men. (That may explain why Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt are an item, and why the marriage of Billy Joel and supermodel Christie Brinkley didn't last.)

Gordon G. Gallup Jr., a professor of psychology at the State University of New York at Albany, said the findings might reflect human habits developed through evolution. When females pick mates, they may be looking for men who are more likely to "invest in the family and their offspring and make a long-term, committed investment in the relationship," said Gallup, who formerly taught Frederick.

By contrast, women looking for partners may view muscular men "as more likely to play the field and less likely to make commitments," Gallup said.

Far from being pushovers in the bedroom, young Canadian female university students are the ones who are frequently doing the pushing. A majority of undergraduate women interviewed for a soon-to-be published Canadian study say that faced with resistance to their sexual advances they turn up the heat and pressure in order to get what they want -- including starting to undress their partner, or letting their hands wander around his body.

However, the authors of the study say that, surprisingly, the characteristics that predict male sexual coerciveness don't hold true for women.

"To tell mom and dad that their 20-year-old daughter really likes to have sex and is even willing to use subtle forms of pressure in order to convince a reluctant partner to have sex might be pretty devastating to many middle-class parents. (But) that's essentially what we're showing," says lead author Guelph University psychology professor Serge Desmarais.

The research explored the self-reported use of mild forms of what the authors called overt and covert pressure tactics by 209 second- and third-year heterosexual, female Guelph University psychology students.

Raised in an era of "third-wave sexual feminism" -- reflected in TV shows like Sex and the City and videos like Girls Gone Wild -- the communication differences between Mars and Venus seems to be shrinking, at least in bed.

More than half of the women said that, faced with a reluctant partner, usually in the context of a relationship, they'd begun to undress him. Three-quarters had told their partner straight-out they wanted to have sex, and most had tried to excite him with oral sex.

"Contrary to normative assumptions that women prefer to use indirect strategies to get what they want in interpersonal relationships, we found that the women in our study reported significantly more use of overt sexual pressure than covert pressure strategies," says Mr. Desmarais, along with co-author and former Guelph student Rebecca Parr-LeFeuvre, in an article to be published in the Journal of Sex Research.

Covert pressure tactics such as sulking, trying to make a lover jealous or feigning a lack of interest, are largely non-starters for these young women -- most of whom are used to initiating sex. Indeed, the students reported being more pushy in the use of tactics such as taking off a man's pants than did women, whose average age was 38, surveyed in a similar study by Mr. Desmarais and colleagues in 1998.

"I think we walk around with a rather old-fashioned belief around women and sexuality, (in which) his job is to try and get a home run and her job is to say 'no.' The world just isn't that simple. Guys don't always try and get it all the time," says Mr. Desmarais, a 10-year veteran of gender and sexuality research and the Canada Research Chair in social psychology at Guelph.

He's adamant that the results not be seen as legitimizing sexual aggression by men. "I don't mean the work to suggest that somehow women walk around victimizing men endlessly. Because I think the ramifications of the pressure by women is very different given size and strength differences."

The study found little relation between the traits that social psychologists use to predict men's sexual pressuring, including past sexual coercion and aggressiveness. Mr. Desmarais says this might be partly explained by the fact that those women who are more likely to use overt pressure believe that "guys will always say 'yes' if you offer sex to them."

He notes that's it's impossible to know for certain if what the study is measuring is new behaviour or a change in what's considered socially acceptable to report or research.

LONDON (AFP) - Women, much-maligned by the opposite sex for their supposed lack of ability behind the wheel, make far safer and more law-abiding drivers than their male counterparts, British officials said.

Of those found guilty of all driving offences by courts in England and Wales in 2002, 88 percent were male motorists, according to statistics published by the Home Office.

Men committed almost all the most serious offences, such as causing death and dangerous driving, but women's share of speeding offences rose from 13 percent in 1998 to 17 percent in 2002.

The category in which women committed the highest number of offences was obstruction, waiting and parking -- being responsible for 23 percent of such cases in 2002.

Women committed just six percent of the death or bodily harm offences in 2002 and just three percent of dangerous driving offences.

But female offences relating to driving with excess alcohol or drugs in the system increased -- up from nine percent of the total in 1998 to 11 percent in 2002.

Men were responsible for 96 percent of vehicle thefts and 97 percent of offences relating to motorcyles.

Overall, women's share of motoring offences rose only one percent between 1998 and 2002.

Companies owned by women are growing at double the rate of all small businesses in the nation, spending $550 billion a year on payroll and benefits, according to figures released Tuesday by a research group.

This year, women own a 50 percent or larger stake in 10.6 million privately held companies, the Center for Women's Business Research

said. This is almost 48 percent of the country's privately held businesses. Companies owned by women have $2.46 trillion in sales and

employ just over 19 million people nationwide, according to the latest data from the center, which is based in Washington.

"We estimate that women-owned firms are growing at close to twice the rate of all privately held firms, 17 percent versus 9 percent," said

Myra M. Hart, a Harvard Business School professor and chairwoman of the center.

"These businesses are a critical component of the economy," she said, "not only in terms of their influence but also in terms of their

economic impact."

That impact is often little noticed, said Deborah Davis, 41, who owns four dry cleaners in the Los Angeles area called Cleaner By Nature.

"It's happened so fast," said Ms. Davis, who has 18 employees. "When I was born, women didn't usually own their own businesses. It's a

tremendous change in one generation."

Also, said Ms. Davis, "women often find niches in the marketplace where men aren't, so they don't have as high a profile."

The study estimated that employment at companies owned by women increased 24 percent in seven years, compared with 12 percent at all privately owned companies.

"There is a perception that women-owned businesses are smaller," said Nina McLemore, who runs a women's executive clothing business in New York. Compared with businesses owned by men, she said, "Yes, they are still a bit smaller, but not significantly so, and they don't stay smaller."

When Ms. McLemore's business began 13 months ago, she was its only worker; it now has 13 employees. In its first year, her company had $1.5 million in revenue, reflecting another trend noted in the study: estimated revenue for companies owned by women is increasing rapidly. Since 1997, revenue at companies owned by women has risen 39 percent, compared with 34 percent for all privately owned companies.

"These firms are driving growth in the American workplace," said Joy Ott, spokeswoman for the Women's Business Services program at Wells Fargo & Company, which paid for the study.

According to the study, businesses owned by women are found in all industries, but 45 percent, or 4.9 million, are service companies; 16.4 percent, or 1.8 million, are in retail; 9 percent, or 966,662, in finance, insurance or real estate; and 6 percent, or 652,807, in

construction.

The construction business has experienced a major increase in the number of companies owned by women. From 1997 to 2004, the study found, the number of construction companies owned by women increased 30

percent.

In transportation, communications and public utilities, growth in the number of businesses owned by women was 28 percent, and agricultural services grew 24 percent.

The No. 1 state in 2004 for companies owned by women was California, followed by Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and Ohio. The rankings were based on a combination of factors.

Evolutionary selection has equipped females with immunoregulatory genes on the X chromosome for coping with life-threatening illness. Five immunodeficiency syndromes occur solely in males, suggesting that they arise from mutant immunoregulatory genes located on the X chromosome. These syndromes, although rare, could contribute to poorer survival of males. Females have higher serum IgM concentrations, superior ability to form antibodies to infectious agents, and experience a lower incidence of viral and bacterial infectious diseases. Preponderance of autoimmune disorders in females could arise from modified immune responses owing to estrogens. Clinical and animal studies indicate that male hormones suppress autoantibody production whereas female hormones support their production. Superior immunocompetence and survival of females is based, in part, on their being protected from mutant immunoregulatory genes located on the X chromosome.

In an age of equal rights, it is sometimes difficult to see the Bible as a friend of women. Although some texts treat husbands and wives as equals (1 Corinthians 7:4), other passages view women as the "weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7) and place them in a supporting role rather than a leading role (Ephesians 5:22-25).

In another time and place, the Bible's approach to gender looked different. In a patriarchal world, daughters and wives were viewed as property. In such a setting the Scriptures elevated the status of women. Today, however, the suggestion that a woman should submit seems backward and even un-American. What if a wife has better judgment than her husband? What if she is more gifted in making and managing money, hanging wallpaper, or fixing things around the house?

Conditions of diminished capacity

As a rule, we don't question a woman's leadership if her husband loses his ability to protect and provide for his family. Few will criticize a wife for stepping up to the challenge if her husband is:

•Physically disabled.

•Diagnosed with a debilitating mental or emotional condition.

•Morally entangled in an addiction that blinds him to the needs of his family.

Some, however, have missed the extent to which such lost capacity is a significant factor in the Bible's approach to men and women.

The history of diminished capacity

The first pages of the Bible describe the origin and results of impaired judgment. At the onset of human mortality, God Himself declared that weeds and thorns would sprout from the earth, pain would complicate childbirth, and men would rule their wives (Genesis 3:16-19). Although most of us work to minimize the curse of weeds in our yards and the pain in childbirth, some of us have not seen the subordination of women as part of the same curse. As a result, we have seen male dominance as a principle to affirm rather than a problem to be minimized. Yet the Bible itself shows that in circumstances of diminished capacity, God is flexible in His approach to the complementing roles of men and women.

• Abraham is widely regarded as "the father of us all" (Romans 4:16). His legacy is rich in faith but also includes impaired reason and flawed judgment. In several examples of diminished capacity, both he and his wife Sarah made the mistake of following one another's advice (Genesis 12:11-20; 16:1-4). Along the way, however, Abraham learned that it is not beneath a man to submit to an imperfect woman. In a difficult family dispute, the Lord told Abraham to defer to Sarah's demands (Genesis 21:9-12).

• Abigail is an example of a woman married to a man whose pride blinded his judgment. Rather than submitting to her husband's stubbornness, she protected her family by providing care and assistance to David and his hungry soldiers (1 Samuel 25).

• Then there is Deborah, who rose above the prominence of her husband in ancient Israel, acted as a judge in matters of social dispute, and in a moment of national crisis led the army into battle (Judges 4-5).

The example and teaching of Jesus

No one, however, gives us a better example of how to respond to conditions of diminished capacity than Christ Himself. In heaven He was "with God" and "was God" (John 1:1). In the presence of His Father, angels obeyed His every word. Yet He willingly and lovingly stepped into history to become the Servant of servants and the Husband of a very imperfect and unfaithful church.

No one had more right to be followed. No one had more inherent ability to rule. Yet in the words of Paul, Jesus "made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross" (Philippians 2:7-8).

Christ's self-limitation and submission were voluntary. His example was intentional. To His disciples Jesus said, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called 'benefactors.' But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves" (Luke 22:25-27).

Capacity and love-based leadership

The apostle Peter wrote, "As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God . . . that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever" (1 Peter 4:10-11).

The sovereign power that Peter referred to blends in mysterious ways with the unfairness and inequities of our fallen, broken world. Men often end up with physical and social advantage. Sometimes, especially in our technologically developed world, the pattern is reversed. In the long run, what counts is whether we use the capacities God has entrusted to us to seek the honor and well-being of those who need our help. What matters is whether we work with our Lord, or against Him.